What was promised?
The public 2014 CCD goodwill policy sits beside later fees and the end of the replacement programme. The consumer asks Leica to reconcile that history.
2014 / 2017 / 2018 / 2020LEICA M9 CCD · WARRANTY & SERVICE COMPLAINT
T.C. WU’S CONSUMER ALLEGATION
PAID FOR QUALITY.
LEFT FIGHTING
FOR WARRANTY.
The consumer alleges misleading warranty promises and unfulfilled service commitments. This is the record behind that complaint: the purchases, the repair files, the correspondence, and the questions put to Leica.
Independent consumer complaint + satire. Not affiliated with Leica.
Actual archived sources and a labelled correspondence excerpt. Open the full images and context →
LATEST CORRESPONDENCE ON FILE · AS OF 2026-10-17
As of 2026-10-17, Leica has still not given a named point-by-point written reply to the numbered questions (alleged / unanswered); a company letter dated 2 October 2026 (CorporateCommunications / J. Winter) exists but did not answer point by point. Last relevant inbound: CRM auto ticket SC00116909 at about 2026-10-14 19:25 — ticket only / automatic acknowledgement, not a reply. Prior CRM auto tickets SC00116055 / SC00116056 / SC00116060 (evening of 2026-10-10) remain as background auto-acks. Open gap: orders 1058152 / 1105973 paid-repair vs complimentary wording, and the numbered questions in the 9 October 2026 Day01 formal notice; the reply window (about 2026-10-16) has now been reached, with no named point-by-point written reply on file (alleged / unanswered). Timeline · 2026-10-16: a one-to-one letter was sent to Leica Corporate Communications (J. Winter) asking for a written reply by 2026-10-23. The same day, informational (“for your awareness”) notification letters were sent to 11 German/EU bodies.
Winter letter note · Trademark notice / Day01 context ↗What do the files show?
Purchase proofs, repair estimates and two service orders. “Paid” refers to product purchases. The €1,303 + VAT repair estimate is not itself proof of a completed payment.
Open the source documentsWhere is the explanation?
The consumer’s demand: answer the questions, honour the warranty, and take responsibility for defective products. Twelve written questions set out the requested explanations and remedies.
Read all twelve questionsAdvertising vs actual product performance · as of 2026-10-17
What was advertised in writing. What this file recorded.
Complainant’s position: The complainant believes the outcome recorded in this file is inconsistent with the written advertising and public statements quoted below. These are the complainant’s allegations and belief; they are not an adjudicated finding of fraud or false advertising by anyone. Every quotation and image on this page already appears elsewhere on this site, and links to its source.
| Written statement | What the file records (complainant’s account) |
|---|---|
| Dec 2014, Leica Camera AG: “This goodwill arrangement applies regardless of the age of the camera and also covers sensors that have already been replaced in the past.” … “currently concentrating our efforts on finding a permanent technical solution.” | Brand email, 2019-09-06: “Starting on 01.12.2018 a contribution of €1303 + VAT applies.” The €1,303 + VAT figure is a cost contribution quoted in a company email; it is not proof of payment. Masney, 2022: “a repair is therefore not possible.” |
| Official 2014 CCD notice address. | Archived screenshots EX01 / EX02 show the address returning HTTP 403 Forbidden (historical response). |
| 2 October 2026 company letter (Winter), acknowledged: “complimentary work on your Leica M (Type 240), Noctilux-M and Summilux-M lens”; “We respectfully consider this matter closed.” | The letter does not mention the M9; the complainant disputes that the matter is resolved. No named point-by-point written answer to the numbered questions received as of 2026-10-17. |
The archive holds no advertisement scan; “advertising” here means Leica’s public written statements already quoted on this site. Full page: advertising vs actual product performance → · Promises table · Q1–Q12
Trademark notice · 2026-10-08 · reference 202610081440795776792
A trademark notice about this website. The questions are still open.
On 2026-10-08, Alibaba Cloud forwarded a trademark infringement notice about leica.gmbh, reference number 202610081440795776792. The notice names Marq Vision Inc. as the reporter; the notice says it acts for Leica Camera AG and Leica Microsystems IR GmbH. In other words, Leica, via its agent Marq Vision, issued this trademark notice. It asks for the website to be removed or disabled: “可能引发混淆，并要求删除或禁用该侵权网站。” (editorial English: “may cause confusion, and requests deletion or disabling of the allegedly infringing website.”). The complainant believes this trademark notice suppresses consumer expression about the product and service record documented on this site.
The complainant acknowledges the company letter of 2 October 2026 (Winter) and disputes that the underlying issues are resolved. The €1,303 + VAT figure is a cost contribution quoted in a company email; it is not proof of payment. Read the trademark notice page → · Notice screenshot and response
SOURCE-LED EVIDENCE FILM · 54 SECONDS
The record.
On screen.
Documents, policy reports and an excerpt of the company correspondence. This short film presents the consumer’s case with source references; the original archive remains available to inspect.
Read the film sources and context ↗
The earlier satirical short is separate creative commentary →
THE PROMISES. THE EMAILS. THE IMAGES.
Look at the evidence.
Open every image at full size. Follow the source. Compare what was promised with the correspondence and the consumer’s account.
The promise: age-independent goodwill.
Leica’s CCD statement, reproduced by Red Dot Forum. This saved page includes the replacement and refund wording; it is a third-party republication of the statement.
The reply: no restart of the process.
A labelled film frame showing an excerpt of the archived Complaint Manager correspondence. The original email transcript supplies the surrounding context; this is not a Gmail interface screenshot.
A permanent fix was reported.
The preserved Dark Room article reports a permanent CCD fix. The publication date is 2015; 2019 is the date printed on this saved copy.
The image behind the complaint.
The consumer’s sample photograph is part of the CCD dispute. The visible marks explain the concern; the photograph alone does not establish their technical cause.
A five-year limit appears.
Red Dot Forum reports a revised free-replacement window, effective 16 August 2017. Read the published terms alongside the earlier statement.
The replacement price increases.
This archived report discusses the US CCD replacement programme and dollar prices. It is not the consumer’s €1,303 estimate or a payment receipt.
Replacement is no longer available.
Leica Rumors reports the end of M9 CCD sensor replacements. This saved report is part of the chronology of policy changes and available remedies.
The later offer includes film cameras.
A Red Dot Forum report records analog M models among paid upgrade options. The consumer asks how the upgrade route answers the original service concern.
The public response, preserved.
Leica Rumors also published the company’s response to CCD corrosion. The complete archive keeps the publication and its surrounding context available.
The notice URL returned 403.
An archived browser screenshot shows the official notice URL returning Forbidden. It records a historical response, not a finding of deliberate deletion or the current server status.
SEPTEMBER 2026 — HISTORICAL STATUSEarlier complaint summary, ticket references, clocks and introduction+
Preserved historical wording. The status entries and elapsed-day counts below were written in September 2026 and are not live counters. They predate the October company-letter note. The previous introduction is retained for continuity.
Formal written demand · 7 days · sent 2026-09-23 · deadline 2026-09-30 · demand page · Q1–Q12
Remittance / orders / payment on file — Alleged: money collected, quality warranty / 2014 Kulanz not honoured · process-promise gap · deadline 2026-09-30 · lawyerstyle page · consumer T.C. Wu · orders 1058152/1105973 · €1303 · tickets SC00111693–SC00111703 + SC00111762–SC00111765 + SC00112050–SC00112052 + SC00112623–SC00112628 + SC00112630–SC00112633 · Payment / remittance on file · BANK01–04 · EX04–EX11
Alleged 收款 vs 质保 / remittance vs warranty · as of 2026-09-28 · silence ~86 days · Demand 2026-09-30
Invoice / Rechnung ask · exhibits 01–05 · OUT=2 · IN/auto=3 · human substantive=0 · CRM SC00111766 auto ≠ reply · #invoice-ask · /exhibits/invoice-ask/ · 未见独立截图 PNG
As of 2026-09-30 · still no numbered written reply to Q1–Q12 · Message blocked ≠ reply · CRM autos SC00111693–SC00111703 (Demand day) + SC00111762–SC00111765 (lawyerstyle afternoon) + SC00112050–SC00112052 (2026-09-24 CRM auto) + SC00112623–SC00112628 + SC00112630–SC00112633 (2026-09-26 MUST-SEND CRM auto) + prior SC00111404–SC00111411 ≠ reply · alleged cheating where staff/auto promised reply then went silent
Non-brand note · VZ-BW archive-ack only (infozentrum@vz-bw.de) — not a Leica named point-by-point written reply; not a regulator case filing. CRM auto-ack ≠ numbered answer to Q1–Q12.
Timeline note (non-substantive) · Kirstin Masney OOO until 2026-09-28; Liberty.Caringal mailbox inactive; Customer.Care Automatic reply (FINAL NOTICE Rechnung) — auto ≠ named point-by-point written reply. CRM SC00112623–628 + 630–633 = ticket ≠ reply.
~4,315 days since Dec 2014 goodwill
~2,575 days since Brand €1303 letter (2019-09-06)
Named on the public record: Ursula Brand, Kirstin Masney, mail-thread Coletta, Kaufmann, Seria — plus blocked-mail cluster Brand / Kupfer / Frank / Steuer / Roder. Auto-replies and “we will get back to you” lines are not a point-by-point written answer. Public “repair” still routes to film M6 etc. Alleged cheat / deceive only — not a court fraud verdict.
Lawyerstyle · remittance / warranty Formal Demand · 7 days Promises vs delivery Promised reply not delivered Schmidt HK alleged lifetime CCD Blocked correspondence Bank PDF Emails Exhibits Q1–Q12
Play the archived satire film ↓
Not leica-camera.com · SATIRE · Alleged remittance vs warranty · Evidence
This is about
LEICA
Camera AG · Wetzlar · not the shop
Silence ~87 days · as of 2026-09-28
Formal Demand deadline 2026-09-30
Orders 1058152 / 1105973
Invoice-ask 01–05 · OUT2 / auto3 / human0
Alleged: after payment / cost records linked to the orders are verifiable on file, quality / CCD warranty commitments still lack a named, point-by-point written reply.alleged：与订单相关的收款/费用记录可核验之后，质量 / CCD 相关保修与书面承诺，仍未换来具名、逐点的书面答复。
Orders 1058152 / 1105973 · Public archive · Not a court judgment. · Consumer T.C. Wu · Brand €1303+VAT.
Payment / remittance on file is public at /bank/ (BANK01–04) and EX04–EX11. Quality / CCD warranty and written promises still have no named point-by-point written answer. CRM autos SC00111693–SC00111703 + SC00111762–SC00111765 + SC00112050–SC00112052 + SC00112623–SC00112628 + SC00112630–SC00112633 ≠ reply. Auto-ack ≠ answer. Alleged only — not a court fraud verdict. Not a licensed solicitor.
THE COMPLETE RECORD BELOW Original evidence, arguments, photographs and dated updates remain available. Read historical statements with their dates.
Evidence strip · payment first · then the warranty gap
收款可核验 · 质保仍无具名逐点书面答复
Click-through gallery of existing assets only — purchase / order / estimate frames, then bank PDFs at /bank/. Alleged characterisation: remittance on file, quality / CCD warranty answer missing. Not invented invoices.
HISTORICAL SNAPSHOT · SEPTEMBER 2026 · THESE COUNTS ARE NOT LIVE
Complaint clock ~87 days · first related notice 2026-07-03 · as of 2026-09-28
Formal Demand deadline 2026-09-30
Goodwill clock ~4,315 days since Dec 2014
Brand €1303 letter ~2,575 days (2019-09-06)
Promise vs delivery · as of 2026-09-28
What they promised. What this file got. · 他们承诺了什么 · 本案得到了什么
Sourced public goodwill vs what orders 1058152 / 1105973 actually produced. Alleged characterisation only.
Alleged cheating / 涉嫌欺骗： promising a free any-age fix, a permanent technical solution, and auto/human “will reply” — then billing, 403, silence, or a film-camera upsell. Not a court fraud verdict. Named on record: Brand, Masney, Coletta, Kaufmann, Seria.
| Promise (date · source) | What happened in this file / public record |
|---|---|
| Dec 2014 — Stefan Daniel / Leica Camera AG: free CCD for M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom / M-E regardless of age, including already-replaced sensors; refunds; working toward a permanent technical solution; “technically faultless products” / rebuild trust. Leica Rumors · Red Dot · PetaPixel |
Ursula Brand €1303 + VAT (2019-09-06); “not acknowledgeable”; official notice 403; no free permanent CCD path for this customer. |
| June 2015 — redesigned corrosion-resistant sensor as long-term fix; goodwill continues irrespective of age (Red Dot Forum). | Public arc: 2017 five-year free window / fee → CCD stop ~2020 (Kirstin Masney: Oct 2019). Alleged bait-and-switch vs 2014 “regardless of age.” |
| Das Wesentliche — essential quality brand positioning already satirised on this site. | 403 on the official CCD notice + the €1303 path (€1,303 + VAT is Leica’s quoted/assumed amount, not proof of payment; the complainant has seen no formal invoice, pending Leica’s explanation) + 2025 “repair” = upgrade list including analog M6. |
| Auto/human “we will reply” from Customer Care / Complaint Management. | As of 2026-09-21, the promised reply had not become a point-by-point letter to Q1–Q12; Winter replied on 2026-10-02, which I consider does not answer the points. Gmail Message blocked to named @leica-camera.com. See promised-reply note. |
| Schmidt HK — alleged lifetime CCD (already on updates). | HQ “not acknowledgeable” / authorised-dealer path. Schmidt HK note. |
Remittance / orders / payment on file · as of 2026-09-28
Verifiable purchase & orders · then alleged: money collected, quality warranty not honoured
Consumer T.C. Wu. Orders 1058152 / 1105973. Brand €1303+VAT. EX07–EX11 / EX04–EX06 on gallery. Payment / remittance on file: /bank/ · BANK01 · BANK02 · BANK03 · BANK04 · EX04–EX11 (Leica-emailed estimates / order confirmations / confirmation of receipt; also archive order confirmation 811072). Auto wall SC00111693–SC00111703 + SC00111762–SC00111765 + SC00112050–SC00112052 + SC00112623–SC00112628 + SC00112630–SC00112633 ≠ named answer. Deadline 2026-09-30. Alleged — not adjudicated fraud; lawyer-letter style only.
Payment / remittance on file — Bank purchase-path PDFs (public, unredacted): /bank/ · BANK01 · BANK02 · BANK03 · BANK04. Leica-emailed paperwork: EX04–EX11. Archive also holds order confirmation 811072. No separate formal Leica Rechnung/Invoice PDF on file; survey subject refs 2009060040 / 2009061250 are email titles only.
Full lawyerstyle notice · Questions · payment gallery · Morning Formal Demand
Invoice / Rechnung request · exhibits 01–05 · as of 2026-09-28
Formal invoice ask timeline · 正式发票 / Rechnung 请求时间线
EN: Alleged: payment received; independent Rechnung not provided; service/warranty written reply outstanding. €1,303 + VAT is Leica’s quoted/assumed amount, not proof of payment.
ZH: alleged：已有收款记录；未提供独立 Rechnung；服务/保修书面答复仍待解释。€1,303+VAT 是徕卡报价/承担金额，不是付款证明。
ZH: alleged：已有收款记录；未提供独立 Rechnung；服务/保修书面答复仍待解释。€1,303+VAT 是徕卡报价/承担金额，不是付款证明。
Counts: OUT=2 · IN/auto=3 · human substantive=0. CRM ticket SC00111766 is auto-ack, not a human reply. Auto-ack ≠ Rechnung ≠ substantive written reply. Orders 1058152 / 1105973.
Media note — 未见独立截图 PNG: exhibits are text exports + Gmail viewUrl only (MCP has no PNG/Gmail screenshot renders). No fake Gmail screenshots are published. Optional payment visual: /bank/ BANK01–04.
| # · Dir · CST (UTC+8) | Note · exhibit link |
|---|---|
| 01 · OUT 2026-09-23 15:38:45 |
Formal invoice / Rechnung PDF request 01 · text exhibit |
| 02 · IN/auto 2026-09-23 15:38:54 |
CRM SC00111766 auto-ack (≠ human reply) 02 · text exhibit |
| 03 · IN/auto 2026-09-23 15:43:55 |
Customer.Care automatic reply 03 · text exhibit |
| 04 · OUT 2026-09-24 10:28:48 |
Follow-up restating numbered invoice requests 04 · text exhibit |
| 05 · IN/auto 2026-09-24 10:34:14 |
Customer.Care automatic reply 05 · text exhibit |
Pack index: /exhibits/invoice-ask/ · INDEX.md. Consumer-authored archive · alleged · auto-acks ≠ substantive written reply · auto-acks ≠ Rechnung.
Read this first
This is about LEICA. It is not the LEICA shop.
SATIRE / CONSUMER ARCHIVE. We borrowed the black-and-red manner of a Wetzlar product page to mock a vanished promise. No shop. No login. If you work at Am Leitz-Park 5: this is the catalogue your customers were not given after 2014.
Leica Camera AG told the world, in December 2014, that M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom / M-E cover-glass corrosion would be replaced regardless of the age of the camera, including sensors already swapped, with refunds, while a “permanent technical solution” was sought. This file’s customer was later billed in the €1303 + VAT class (Ursula Brand, 6 Sep 2019), told a 2014 receipt was “not acknowledgeable,” shown a 403 on the official notice URL, then told by Complaint Manager Kirstin Masney that CCD production had stopped in October 2019. In 2025 the public “repair” is still an upgrade list — including analog M6 / MP / M-A.
That sequence is the joke. The joke is not funny if you paid for German quality and got a Forbidden page. Orders 1058152 / 1105973 / 811072. Name redacted. Bank purchase-path PDFs are public and unredacted at BANK01 · BANK02 · BANK03 · BANK04 (also /bank/). Mail index: /emails/ (legacy /mail/ stills). Exhibits: /exhibits/. Allegations, not a court verdict.
Contradiction card · as of 2026-09-28
2014 goodwill vs €1303 vs 403 vs Schmidt HK alleged lifetime CCD
2014 goodwill
Public free CCD replacement regardless of camera age, including sensors already swapped, plus refunds, plus a “permanent technical solution.”
€1303 + VAT
Ursula Brand, 6 Sep 2019: contribution class billed to this file’s customer — after the free-goodwill era.
HTTP 403
Official 2014 CCD notice URL returned Forbidden. The text survives on third-party reprints; the HQ page did not.
Schmidt HK (alleged)
Schmidt Marketing (Hong Kong) Ltd — alleged public lifetime CCD coverage for M-System digital cameras, versus HQ “not acknowledgeable” / authorised-dealer path. See dated note · Schmidt landing.
Open Q3 asks how a regional lifetime message sits beside HQ fees, 403, and stop language without a written HQ clarification. Allegations and unanswered questions — not a court finding.
The object
LEICA M9 — the camera this file is about.
Cited photographs of the CCD body. The red-dot brand is the subject of the satire, so the body is on the page. We typeset LEICA + the red point; we do not ship their trademark file as a fake shop.
M9 · CC BY-SA 3.0
M9 front · CC BY 2.0
M9 Titanium · CC BY 2.0
Cited · leica-camera.com
This file · corrosion
This file · 403
Camera stills: Wikimedia Commons as credited. Official homepage capture is a citation of how LEICA Camera AG presents itself now. M9 reference image: Denoir; crop/levels by Soerfm, CC BY-SA 3.0. Model reference photographs are not photographs of the consumer’s disputed camera.
Timeline
LEICA CCD — the years, not a version number.
This site is replaced in place. The chronology is the product.
LEICA M9. First full-frame digital M. Kodak CCD.
LEICA goodwill. Free CCD replacement regardless of age. Then, in this file, the official page went 403.
Five years. Free path narrowed. Older bodies ~€982.
€1303 + VAT. Ursula Brand wrote the figure to this customer.
This Wetzlar file. 1058152. “not acknowledgeable.” Europe-only return. Forbidden.
CCD discontinued. Masney: Oct 2019. Estimate 1105973 still in June 2020.
Still LEICA, still no CCD. Upgrade list adds analog M6 / MP / M-A.
This desk. Satire of LEICA. Twelve questions. Written answers demanded.
The collection
Evidence, hung like a product line.
Captures and mailbox stills, not lifestyle ads.
The opening reel
The video is the homepage.
Autoplay, muted. No real executive’s face. Send a real letter instead.
The only SKU
A written explanation. Point by point. Not an automatic reply.
Customer Care and Complaint Management, Leica Camera AG, Am Leitz-Park 5, 35578 Wetzlar.
- How does 2014 “regardless of age” become 2017/2018 fees and a 2020/2019 stop?
- Why did the official 2014 CCD URL return 403? Where is the notice now?
- HQ “not acknowledgeable” vs alleged Schmidt HK lifetime CCD coverage?
- What would have made the 18 Aug 2014 Monochrom proof acknowledgeable?
- Was a point-by-point reply to September 2019 ever issued?
- Physical status of 1058152 and 1105973 — date and place.
- Why Europe-only return, not Hong Kong?
- Reconcile March 2020 close of 1058152 with June 2020 order 1105973.
- Last CCD-fit date at Wetzlar vs the June 2020 estimate?
- Remedies: Leica glass, third-party reimbursement, this file’s trade-in, refund, or a reasoned no.
- Why did some official replacements corrode again?
- Will 2014–2020 notices be restored as readable public pages?
More stills
LEICA, drawn as the problem — not as a shop.
Generated commentary stills plus the price-ladder poster (dates from the public record and from Brand’s letter in this file). Not official advertising.
01 — halo still (generated)
02 — LEICA / 403 wordmark
03 — unanswered desk
04 — €0 → €1303 → no CCD
FAQ · for search
What this LEICA CCD archive is — and is not.
Is this the official Leica website?
No. leica.gmbh is a labelled satire and consumer evidence desk about Leica Camera AG. It is not a shop, not firmware, not Customer Care.
What is Leica M9 CCD corrosion?
White halos / spots at small apertures on M9, M9-P, M Monochrom and M-E bodies, documented from 2014 as corrosion of the sensor cover glass (Kodak CCD / Schott-type IR glass). DPReview, LFI and Leica’s own 2014 goodwill text describe it.
Did Leica offer a free replacement?
Yes, publicly, December 2014: free CCD replacement regardless of camera age, including sensors already replaced, plus refunds, plus work on a “permanent technical solution.” Later: five-year limit, then €1303+VAT (Brand, 2019), then “cannot replace” (2020), then an upgrade catalogue that in 2025 includes analog M6.
What is HTTP 403 on the 2014 notice?
The official URL cited in this complaint for “Important Information Concerning the CCD Sensors” returned Forbidden. The text survives on third-party reprints (LFI, DPReview, DSLR-Forum). One of the twelve questions asks where the notice lives now.
What are orders 1058152 and 1105973?
Wetzlar Customer Care / repair order numbers in this file. Estimate, reminder, “not acknowledgeable” proof, Europe-only return, then a linked 2020 successor estimate after the stated October 2019 CCD production stop.
Why satire?
The red-dot catalogue look is the punchline: a company that sold “Das Wesentliche” then served 403. The demand underneath is not a joke: a point-by-point written explanation.
Are auto-replies published?
Not on the public mail index. Human threads only: Brand, Coletta, Kaufmann, Seria, Masney.
How do I search this?
Useful queries: Leica M9 CCD corrosion, CCD-Korrosion Wetzlar, Auftrag 1058152, 403 CCD sensors, €1303 sensor, not acknowledgeable Leica, M6 CCD upgrade 2025, ライカ M9 CCD, 徕卡 CCD 腐蚀.
Freshness
Latest dated notes
2026-10-18 — Named stack: Kodak KAF-18500 + Schott S8612 — what the M9 CCD cover glass was (alleged) (dated note · journal 2026-09-23 Golem.de via Macfilos / KAF-18500 + Schott S8612; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-17 — Buying a used M9 now: a German dealer guide and an “ID15, free of corrosion” listing (alleged) (dated note · journal 2026-09-18 fotohandel.de / 2026-09-19 Classic Store Wetzlar “ID15”; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-16 — 2014, in German: “unabhängig vom Alter” — the Kulanz wording Wetzlar owners received (alleged) (dated note · journal 2014-12-11 DSLR-Forum DE / “unabhängig vom Alter”; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-15 — 2024 EU forum thread: Sensorglas workshops after Leica “will not replace” (alleged) (dated note · journal 2024-12-04 L-Camera-Forum DE / Hamburg·Warsaw·China; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-14 — 2024 and 2025: the M9 “upgrade” list kept growing — the CCD part did not come back (alleged) (dated note · journal 2024-01-02 Macfilos / 2025-10-03 Red Dot Forum; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-13 — 2017: the “regardless of age” CCD offer was set to end — five-year window and €982 (alleged) (dated note · journal 2017-05-22 DPReview / 16 Aug 2017 expiry, €982; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-12 — Glass swap or “upgrade”? A 2025 owner blog prices the choice left to M9 owners (dated note · journal 2025-05-19 ErickPHOTO / 2023-02-16 DCFever; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-11 — 2025 forum report: a Wetzlar-replaced M9 sensor corroded again — then went to a third-party shop (dated note · journal 2025-04-08 L-Camera-Forum / third-party owner account; Q1–Q12 still open). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-10-03 — 2 October company reply: disputed closure; itemised accounting requested
The company reply exists. Different camera models and quotations must not be conflated; the consumer asks for records of actual charges, payments and work.
2026-09-26 — CRM autos SC00112623–SC00112628 + SC00112630–SC00112633 (noreply-crm@leica-camera.com → legal@leica.gmbh, ~14:01–14:11 Asia/Shanghai; after MUST-SEND / Final Notice): another auto ≠ reply batch. Customer.Care Automatic reply (FINAL NOTICE Rechnung) · Masney OOO until 2026-09-28 · Liberty.Caringal mailbox inactive — all auto ≠ numbered written answer to Q1–Q12. Alleged — not adjudicated fraud. Gmail UI: 待补.
2026-09-26 — Invoice / Rechnung ask timeline on homepage · exhibits 01–05 · OUT=2 · IN/auto=3 · human substantive=0 · CRM SC00111766 auto ≠ reply · 未见独立截图 PNG · #invoice-ask. Alleged — not adjudicated fraud.
2026-09-25 — “Not acknowledgeable” path — alleged HQ course
2026-09-24 — After the official stop — alleged third-party cover-glass path (Kolari ~$999 / EU glass workshops after alleged HQ stop; journal + WEB014–016). Alleged — not a court finding.
2026-09-23 — Remittance / orders / payment on file — Alleged: money collected, quality warranty not honoured (lawyer-letter style afternoon wave; deadline 2026-09-30). Message-IDs pending send. Alleged — not adjudicated fraud; not licensed solicitor.
2026-09-23 — Formal written demand · 7 calendar days (deadline 2026-09-30) — Message-ID
<179012237437.155910.11822775540272313454@leica.gmbh> · CRM autos ≠ numbered reply. Alleged — not adjudicated fraud.2026-09-23 — CRM autos SC00111693–SC00111703 (noreply-crm@leica-camera.com → admin@leica.gmbh, ~08:13–08:18 Asia/Shanghai; after Formal Demand): another auto ≠ reply batch. Auto ticket ≠ numbered written answer to Q1–Q12. Alleged — not adjudicated fraud.
2026-09-22 — Official 2014 CCD notice URL returns 403 (alleged)
2026-09-13 — Evidence expansion
2026-09-12 — First relaunch
Glossary
Words a Wetzlar search should still find.
- CCD
- Charge-coupled device. The Kodak full-frame sensor family in M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom / M-E — not the later CMOS M240 and M10.
- Cover glass / ICF
- IR-cut filter glass over the sensor. The failure mode is white halos, not ordinary dust. Independent shops replace Schott-type glass; Leica stopped replacing the CCD.
- Goodwill 2014
- Leica’s public free-replacement programme, regardless of age, including sensors already swapped.
- 403
- HTTP Forbidden. Status of the official 2014 notice URL in this file.
- €1303 + VAT
- Contribution stated by Ursula Brand, Customer Care, 6 September 2019, cc complaint.management.
- 1058152 / 1105973 / 811072
- Wetzlar order numbers in this archive.
- CCD Sensor Corrosion Upgrade Program
- After parts ended: trade-in toward current cameras, including in 2025 analog M6 / MP / M-A.
Longer English/German landings: /m9-ccd-corrosion/ · /ccd-korrosion/ · /questions/ · /emails/